Why are you afraid of differing opinions? If a historical even actually happened, then honest and vigorous debate will not harm the story. The only reason to censor the opposition is because your side of the story won't hold up to the light of day.

I hate to derail a perfectly good rant about some guy whose not even in the clip, but…

I think the analysis in this video is flawed, to the extent they try to tackle the "why" of the lack of media coverage for wars. The excuse that corporate media isn't covering it because its bad for ratings has no evidence to back it up, and seems to rest entirely on the assumption that those media outlets only care about money and therefore money must be the "why" to any question about their behavior.

The "big 3" media are constantly doing things which are clearly bad for ratings and bad for the bottom line for ideological reasons, from MSNBC keeping Jesse Ventura on their payroll but off the year for years because they didn't want a high profile host criticizing the Iraq War to Fox Business getting rid of Freedom Watch (one of their better rated shows) for absolutely no conceivable reason.

There may be ideological reasons the outlets don't want to cover the wars more, it may be sheer laziness on their part, it may just be that they each see the other two not doing it and don't want to stand out too much. The argument that the war is a "bummer story" and would be bad for ratings, however, makes no sense, especially since these same media outlets jump all over every "child missing in the woods with an untrustworthy loner" story like its the Second Coming.

What is MISSING from all News reports is HISTORY. News without HISTORY is subject without context. All Journalists must have FAILED HISTORY because they NEVER can include history to provide context to the story. Take the NEWS that a 22 car freeway pile up crash on the local interstate. The news story can be about the event of the 22 car crash, but also about the building of the interstate, the funding it received, the freeway laws bills passed and even the latest technology about making cars and freeways safer.
CONTEXT via history is sorely needed for all News Stories.

I agree with that but also the media have got so used to accepting the easily digestable official version that finding out the other side of the story from people who don't have access to a communications manager takes too much work and officials who might make it difficult in future to get a story.

I think that denying the Armenian genocide is OK in the context of how the genocide is currently decribed. The Turks suffered a genocide and refugee crisis in the Baklans when their empire collapsed. This disaster was encouraged by the European powers of the day. The Russians had invaded Anatolia and were engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. The Turks felt that it was either them or the Armenians. I'd blame WWI for the genocide more than Turks. Remember, Ataturk tried Enzer Pasha for the genocide in abstentia (he had fled to Berlin as I remember it)

There may be ideological reasons the outlets don't want to cover the wars more, it may be sheer laziness on their part, it may just be that they each see the other two not doing it and don't want to stand out too much.

The argument that the war is a "bummer story" and would be bad for ratings, however, makes no sense, especially since these same media outlets jump all over every "child missing in the woods with an untrustworthy loner" story like its the Second Coming